Deseret News | Reader comments: U. scientist says human evolution is going strong

Reader comments
U. scientist says human evolution is going strong

Page:
1
2
Next >

I'm confused!!! | 12:59 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Isnt the earth only 6,000 years old???

To: I'm confused!!! | 4:51 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

No. The earth is about 4.5 BILLION years old. The very earliest homo sapiens (our genus) appeared about 200,000 years ago in Africa. Migration out of Africa to Europe and Asia (and then the Americas) happened about 45,000 years ago. Sorry if that's not what you learned in Sunday School.

Ben Feese | 4:53 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

"The cause of this mutation is that after people moved out of Africa and into Europe, they needed a better way to get vitamin D" -- NO, these are environmental factors that SELECTED FOR the mutation (after it occurred)--they did NOT "cause" the mutation. Mutations occur essentially at random; most of them have no effect, but when they do, the effect is more likely to be loss or impairment of function rather than advantageous change.

Comments continue below

Ruel Clark | 4:59 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Adaptation is not species evolution. I love milk but some of my children and grandchildren are lactose intolerant and some are not. Will my descendants evolve into another species from this evidence? I think not.

As for confused, if he or she is LDS, a reading on "Earth In The Beginning" by Eric Skousen will provide an interesting view.

Skacks | 5:07 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Sorry, a few minor genetic differences to NOT constitute evolution. The first and second laws of thermodynamics precludes evolution. And yes, the earth is only 6000 years. Come to Christ while there is still time.

GOT HAIR! | 5:40 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

(Historically, the mutations have tended to be local and stay within a region, not jumping from continent to continent.) Please develop a local mutant DNA that will grow hair.. Bald is beautiful!

Tim | 6:00 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Thank goodness I don't live in the Bible belt...
And thank goodness that the universities here do this research and the newspapers print it.
Thank you.

Kevin of Arkansas | 7:03 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Evolution, both in adaptation over a shorter time and speciation over very long periods of time are a scientific fact supported by many lines of strong evidence. The word "theory" used to describe evolution means that it is well established and supported by many, many lines of evidence and should not be confused with the word hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess about what causes a phenomenon. The scientific process seeks to disprove the hypothesis by means of a scientific test. When science tries to disprove a hypothesis many times in many different ways then evidence starts to build for a theory. Another example of a theory is the theory of gravity. Its just a theory right, then go jump off a cliff and disprove that it exists. Evolution is the central concept of biology and is as much a fact as gravity. Speciation is just an accumulation of many such small traits that we as people use to classify organisms into different species.
Evidence for evolution as a fact occurs through several lines of evidence: geological evidence, biological evidence, chemistry, physiology, entomology, herpetology, ornithology, microbiology, and others.

Anonymous | 7:07 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as you cannot describe life as a closed system.

Roscoe | 7:21 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Evolution happens, on this we should all agree.
One Mr. Widtsoe once said that evolution is just a variation of Eternal Progression, for the LDS.
I may be a skeptic but when it comes to the creation of the earth. I don't really trust the scientists or the creationists. I also, frankly, think that it doesn't really matter all that much how it all started. It is a wonderfully curious thing, that will be fun to learn some day when I die.
However, I guess to some it is an important battleground in the whole religion/science debate. I'll let them die on those hills, while I choose to die on something I find more important, like trying to get my kids to bed on time. Maybe someday there will be a mutation that makes kids sleep all day and wake up only for food. That would make them about as impacting as a gold fish.

dcc | 8:36 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The earth is not a closed system. Energy pours in everyday in the form of sunlight. Evolution happens. Scientific evidence supports it. No scientific evidence supports creationism.

Grain has evolved into bread! | 8:43 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The other day scientists found a loaf of bread which studies show was never touched by a living thing! Apparently there was a wheat field sitting next to some sugar cane, both of which were hit by a landslide. The rocks ground the wheat and sugar cane into powder. Some fungus was growing where the flour was and provided some yeast. Soon it rained and an earthquake happened and mixed everything together! Then a volcano erupted nearby and the lava flow brought some iron ore to the location. As the ore got just close enough to the dough it wrapped around it and cooled. The lava stayed just close enough to cook the dough golden brown. In the end you get what the scientists have "proven" to be the only known case of a loaf of bread being made with nature. The Iron around the bread even said "teflon" on it.

If this sounds ridicules to you. Just think how this idea sounds to those who are being told life was created this way. Anyone find it ironic that one of the "professors" described himself as "self taught"?

Evolution is NOT a LAW | 8:51 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Sorry Kevin of ArKansas but Evolution is just a theory whereas gravity is a Law. Obviously you don't understand the difference. Laws are proven mathmatically whereas theories are not. Evolution has NO mathmatical proof and is only based on observation which itself forms a very "weak" conclusion. The Earth was once theorized to be flat based on observation. This was the bullet proof science of the day. Obviously the Earth never was flat and all the theories in the world wouldn't change that. John Glenn and others quickly put that theory to rest for good!! Human Evolution is a false theory based mainly on observation.

Frank | 9:01 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Sorry, Gravity is a theory. Kevin is right.

Happy & Sad | 9:01 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

It's great to see the DNews publish a science article that is both readable and informative. There should be more of this type of coverage.

How wonderful that researchers can track human evolution at this level of detail!

How sad that America now ranks considerably lower than other industrialized nations in terms of public science literacy.

john gilmore | 9:03 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

All i can think about when i hear people argue against evolution is "what will our great great grandchildren think?" And i want to run and write in my journal that "just so you know, grandchildren, i'm not stupid and i DO get it, despite the fact that most people these days seem to think they have personal relationships with imaginary friends."

LU | 9:27 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I was thinking. The evidence for evolution is that some cultures are lactose intolerant causing them to have diarrhea. If this is the case, being a part of evolution is a real bummer.

Anonymous | 9:27 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

And by the comments already put forth, it would seem some of species is evolving backwards.

Imaginary friends? | 9:27 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Like the ones you think you are talking to on a computer?

dwebbz | 9:32 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I came from a monkey, maybe that is why I enjoy an occasional banana or two.

AdjustableSpanner | 9:56 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The comments here make it clear that some of us have evolved and others haven't.

monkeyboy | 10:25 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Well, maybe some evolve while others devolve?

ron | 10:32 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Back when the scientists read the stars the world was flat. since then I am assuming the world evolved to round. Science is great and should be part of our understanding, but please don't try to make it a perfect knowledge

Iron Axe | 11:21 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

So you to tell me that if Man evolves from Monekys why are there still monekeys...considering the populations of China and India?????????lol

Y'z guy | 11:33 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

So, when I lived in the Philippines for a couple years, could you say I evolved? Leaving a cold Utah winter made it difficult to handle the heat. But after a few months I was just fine for the rest of the time!
Now this freezing weather once was not a problem for me now is unbearable! I'm sure that I'll evolve back to a Utahn again though.

Laws, laws | 11:42 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

To: "Evolution is NOT a LAW". Sorry, you could drive all day and still not get close to being right. Our understanding of gravity is a theory (most cranks seem to confuse a formal theory with a simple opinion). Gravity is not mathematically "proven". Math helps explain gravity up to a point, but there are still a number of serious unresolved issues related to gravity. So just as with evolution, we still have things to learn about gravity. Will those things prove gravity wrong. Of course not.

Evolution has given us a remarkable understanding of natural processes. Every little detail we fill in demonstrates once again how brilliant Charles Darwin's original explanation was.

Why?! | 11:46 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

It's pretty clear to me, a genetics major, that none of you have sufficient genetics background (or even science background for that matter) to comment intelligently on this article. It sounds as if you read all of your information on Wikipedia and got mixed up between different ideas. Try taking a genetics class or, at a minimum, a science class.

Be informed | 11:53 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

One can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. When the Bible was written, a true explanation of how God created the earth would have confused everyone. Thus the simplified language makes it more accessible to people throughout the ages. That does not mean that God expects us to hold to this account literally, ignoring all the scientific evidence.

In the New Testament, Christ constantly taught in parables. Many listeners took these literally and missed the entire point of the lesson. Isn't it possible that when we ignore all scientific evidence, we are missing the point of the story of the creation, mainly that God is the Creator and that he created things in an organized fashion for our benefit.

Wouldn't it make sense for God to create our bodies through the process of evolution? Isn't it also possible that when our ancestors had evolved to be in His image, our present state, that he first allowed his spirit children to dwell in these bodies? I've never quite understood why some creationists find it more demeaning to be a descendant of an ape (a complex creature of God) than be created from dust.

God works in mysterious ways.

Illinois Cougar | 11:55 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Hey, this is great news! If mankind can evolve, then the earth can too! So, if we are continually evolving and the earth is continually evolving, doesn't that mean that the global warming folks can talk to Big AL about refunding all of the money they spent on "going green"!

Interesting | 12:11 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I just want someone to explain to me how evolution works? From my small knowledge wouldn't certain chemicals have to combine to form more complex creatures? If this is the case how did those molecules know that they could combine and make a complex molecule with no former intelligence? I don't handle random to well when people talk about how complex and organized life is. Random and organized don't really go together. Just my opinion.

Juan | 12:26 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

In the 1830s LDS theologians were teaching that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, merely changed in form, that it, we, and God are eternal.

Joseph Smith taught continental drift long before a few geologists proposed the idea in the 1920s. They were sneered at by the scientific community until the concept was revived in the 1960s with "Pangaea".

Some LDS theologians have commented that the materials of the earth have existed forever and the earth itself has been formed, destroyed, reformed by Divine Invention, thus creating geological ages. Some scientists today use iridium layers to theorize the periodic destruction of life on earth. What then rekindled it?

I see scientists, in their great desire to prove Darwin right and their misconception of the Bible wrong, blurring adaptation into evolution. I am persuaded that speciation occurs on the Subspecies, Species, Genus and Family level, but not beyond (each after its kind). Meanwhile scientists tell you that changes in industrial revolution pepper moths are evidence that reptiles became mammals and life came from sludge.

Biology texts begin denouncing foolish, archaic notions such as spontaneous generation, then end with evolution: life spontaneously generating.

Origin of Life | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I think the evidence for evolution is quite obvious and I'm not so sure why some are offended by it, unless they are biblical literalists in the strictest sense of the word.

Can anyone here comment on the process that was involved to trasform inanimate matter into to living matter? This seems to be a bit more of an elusive question and I've never heard it explained.

Me | 12:45 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

To Interesting, and others: The evidence of evolution is mostly from small adaptations made in the physiology of organisms. By selective breeding, certain traits can be bred out or into a population. Over many generations of the organism, the changes can be quite large, especially with the intervention of a guiding intellect (i.e. farmers). Small ears of corn developing into large ears of corn is one example.
The extrapolation of these observations to then claim that all life "evolved" from non-intelligent, non-living matter, is where many people begin to have problems.

we all have to evolve | 12:47 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

i'm native american, the slow elk don't cut it and i know I'm lactose intolerant...just ask my friends!

Ernest T. Bass | 12:50 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Hey Ill Coug: Explain how human evolution is somehow linked to the earth evolving. Also, explain why you believe human-caused global warming is a hoax, just because a republican told you it was.

Thomas | 12:51 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

"Interesting" -- Have you ever seen the molecular structure of a quartz crystal? Pretty well organized, wouldn't you say? And yet -- under the proper conditions of heat and pressure -- crystals form from random mineral molecules, without any "intelligent design" whatsoever. The laws of physics do create order out of chaos. (The creationist references to the "second law of thermodynamics" are ignorant; you *can* get increased order in one corner of the universe if you draw energy from another corner (which becomes more disordered in the process).

William Shakespeare | 1:01 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Johnny Utah #9 | 1:05 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

I would much rather evolve from apes, as opposed to being inbred.

Science vs. Religion? | 1:18 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

When I attended BYU-Logan, aka USU, my LDS stake president / chemistry professor said it profoundly:

Though no witnesses have survived, and the modern STUDENTS of the earth's past (scientists) only use human reasoning to 'testify' of their 'beliefs' about it, most LDS scientists don't have a problem with evolution or age of the earth -- God simply used six creative periods of undetermined length and natural, eternal laws of the universe, including evolution, to create the earth we see in all its varieties.

But 6,000 or so years ago He created Adam and Eve with a divine difference, as we are His children, and like our Father.

True science will always agree with true religion.
If not, either ever-changing science hasn't yet caught up, or the particular 'religion' is one of man's many (mostly uninspired interpretations of the old incredibly abridged text).

jim h | 1:25 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Could the USA possibly follow the Middle East's pattern of an increasing hostility towards freedom & science because of the perceived conflicts with religion?

Just remember | 1:30 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

God is a scientist, not a magician

Hope | 1:30 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

It's so nice to see that critical thinkers actually exist. It gets so lonely sometimes (since I don't get to see you weekly at church). Why is right. Before you should comment try taking a science class first. People who are anti-evolution say things that are so poorly thought-out and uninformed. It's like trying to have an intelligent discussion with a first-grader--It's just not possible. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF!

Gerry C | 1:53 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Since moveing to Utah in 1983 I was surprised discover different views among my good Mormon friends regarding evolution. Some of my LDS neighbors believe whole-heartedley in evolution while others completely reject it, and both sides are practicing members. (The members who reject evolution, however, usually question their evolution believing fellow-members testimony.)

I learned to stir the pot when with a group of Mormon friends by asking "what is the official LDS position on evolution?" A fun hour long debate usually follows. I have been surprised to see each camp quote church leaders to support their point of view.
Thanks D News for the article and the fun comments.

RangerGordon | 1:57 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

People who contend, e.g., that gravity is a "law" not a "theory" prove they don't understand what a scientific theory is.

They are therefore unqualified to comment on the validity of evolution.

Linus | 1:58 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The day will come when we will laugh at this stupid argument. The evolutionists have their prophet and the creationists have theirs. Both are guilty of "blind faith." Some pretend their blind faith is "science" while others pretend their blind faith is "religion."
Why are republicans blamed for global warming? The globe has been warming ever since the end of the last ice age, long before there were republicans. Darwin would encourage us to "adapt" rather than flail against this unstoppable trend. The fittest will survive. Perhaps clean living will help.

KD | 2:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

So why is it that creationist point out that humans believed the world was flat, but we now know it is not. To them it validates their point that what was once considered fact is now fiction. But why don't they apply that same litmus test to the writings of the Bible. The same people that observed that the world was flat wrote the Bible. Please wake up. Do you really think their was a T Rex on Noah's Ark??

Anonymous | 3:11 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Nice try but you are repeating something without thing your idea through. "The first and second laws of thermodynamics." These laws apply to closed systems. Earth is not a closed system because earth gets energy from the sun.

fr1nk | 3:17 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Some flat earth creationists like to say that science used to think...insert something science no longer believes... and so science isnt true. That is just the point of science. We see things, make predictions, then try to disprove them. If we cant disprove the hypothesis it becomes theory (the word theory in science is basically fact to the layman). That is how science works. What science doesnt do is see something we cant explain and say "its magic".

DCnTN | 3:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The LDS church seems to be slowly backpedalling on this one. They once fired BYU professors for teaching evolution. A few years ago a BYU prof made the cover of BYU magazine for his contributions to the study of evolution.

The evidence for evolution is simply indisputable. I have told my kids that evolution should in no way be deterrent to a testimony.

Justin | 3:29 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The greatest scientist I ever met was Henry Eyring. Professor Eyring was a world renouned scientist as well as a man of faith. The University of Utah named a chemistry building after him in recognition of his contributions to the world of science and academics. I was priveleged to be a student in his chemistry class at the University in the late 1970's. Professor Eyring tried to teach me chemistry but what I remember most about his class was the conviction of his faith in God which he shared with us. Like Professor Eyring I appreciate the knowledge of the universe which we learn from scientific study and the more I learn, the more I love and appreciate God and his marvelous creations of which I am one.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.